Weighing Gun Control Proposals, Lawmakers Hear From Family Of Woman Killed By Husband

Cloe Poisson

A tear rolls down Merry Jackson's cheek as she talks with reporters at the Legislative Office Building before speaking at a public hearing by the Judiciary Committee on three proposed bills concerning guns. Jackson's daughter, Lori Jackson, was shot and killed by her estranged husband, Scott Gellatly, on May 7.

A tear rolls down Merry Jackson's cheek as she talks with reporters at the Legislative Office Building before speaking at a public hearing by the Judiciary Committee on three proposed bills concerning guns. Jackson's daughter, Lori Jackson, was shot and killed by her estranged husband, Scott Gellatly, on May 7. (Cloe Poisson)

HARTFORD – Lawmakers are considering the first significant gun control proposals since a sweeping package of laws was enacted two years ago in response to the Sandy Hook school shootings.

One bill would allow the removal of guns from a person subject to a temporary restraining order, without a hearing by a judge. A separate proposal would add new penalties to the law regarding the storage of firearms. Both bills were discussed during a lengthy public hearing before the legislature's judiciary committee on Wednesday.

Supporters call them common-sense gun safety measures but critics say they are another example of the legislature's overreach and would merely add burdens to lawful gun owners.

The restraining order bill, proposed by Gov. Dannel P. Malloy, drew the sharpest debate. Lt. Gov. Nancy Wyman and Karen Buffkin, the governor's general counsel, were grilled for more than four hours by critics of the measure.

"If a judge believes that a victim faces an immediate and present physical danger, that judge should have to tools neccessary to protect that victim,'' Wyman said. "The passage of this bill will give them such a tool."

The most emotional testimony came nearly six hours into the hearing, when the family of Lori Jackson Gellatly addressed the panel. Gellatly was a 32-year-old state employee and mother of two from Oxford who was shot and killed in May. Her husband, Scott, has been charged with murder and attempted murder in the shootings of his wife and his mother-in-law, despite having three restraining orders filed against him by the two shooting victims and his first wife.

All three women said they feared for their safety, but the restraining orders were not served on Scott Gellatly because he was out of state. His wife was shot with a legally purchased gun, officials said.

"We knew we were in danger,'' Lori Gellatly's mother, Merry Jackson, told the committee. "We tried to protect ourselves….we bought panic buttons so if we were outside the house and he approached us, it would automatically call the police."

But on that day last May, Jackson said, "he broke through two locked doors and he attacked both my daughter and myself. He shot me four times, he shot my daughter three and he killed her."

In a quavering voice, Jackson said she doubts the law under consideration by the legislature would have protected her daughter. "We just want you to know how it impacts a family, to go through such a terrible thing,'' she said. "We've lost a beautiful daughter, she's lost a beautiful sister. The babies lost their mommy. We have to live every holiday without her, our life will never be the same."

Under the proposal, any guns removed eventually could be returned if a judge later finds that the situation had been resolved. The judge would hold a hearing within 14 days, but the guns would need to be surrendered during that cooling-off period.

Rep. William Tong, co-chairman of the committee, said lawmakers are committed to protecting victims of domestic violence.

"Everyone in this room wants to keep our families safe and doesn't want to put anybody at undue risk of harm,'' said Tong, D-Stamford. "But the counter argument to this proposal is that it is yet another burden on lawful gun ownership...and just another way that this state places unreasonable demands on gun owners."

Wyman said she believes the measure will protect victims while preserving the rights of lawful gun owners. "There's no desire to take anybody's guns away...we trust the judges to make the decision," she said.

Rep. Arthur O'Neill, a Southbury Republican who has served in the General Assembly since 1989, said there is already a law on the books that accomplishes what Wyman and Malloy are proposing. O'Neill helped craft the law after the Connecticut lottery shootings in 1998 that involved the deaths of four state employees and the shooter, who killed himself. The measure was updated in 2013 to include the seizure of ammunition from a "person posing risk of imminent personal injury to self or others.''

"This law has been on the books, it's been upheld constitutionally and it's been found to be workable,'' O'Neill said.

The proposal violates basic principles of due process, said Anna Kopperud, the National Rifle Association's Connecticut liaison. "And,'' she added, "the revocation of an individual's constitutional right should be subject to due process, not accusations that have not been substantiated through some form of judicial review."

The judiciary committee is also considering a bill that would change the law regarding gun storage. Under the proposal, it would be a criminal offense for gun owners to leave a firearm, even an unloaded one, in a place where another person is likely to gain access to it.

Critics of the bill say the state's gun storage laws are tough enough. The measure under consideration would hurt homeowners ability to protect themselves, Kopperud said.

"This bill is just another tool for advocates of gun control and impedes on your right to self-defense,'' she said. "This is the burglar protection act, in so much as it would be so difficult to get to your firearm in your home in a defensive situation that the burglar coming into your home is now better protected than you are."